Bloom, R. v. Bloom, R.
Bloom, R. v. Bloom, R. No. 1443 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Parties married in 1972; divorce decree (incorporating a January 10, 1992 settlement) awarded Wife one-half of Husband’s U.S. Army retirement pay for life.
- Wife received $656.50 monthly from Husband’s military retirement from 1992 until January 2012.
- Husband, declared totally disabled, elected in December 2011 to waive his military retirement pay and receive Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) beginning 2012, which is not part of "disposable retired pay."
- As a result of Husband’s waiver, Wife’s monthly payments ceased in February 2012.
- Wife filed a petition to enforce the divorce settlement agreement and for counsel fees on February 1, 2016. The trial court ordered Husband to resume payments of $656.60/month and pay $100/month toward $36,107.50 in arrears; counsel fees were denied.
- Husband appealed, arguing statute of limitations, laches, and that Wife was not entitled to share CRSC/disability benefits or recovery from other funds.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Statute of limitations – was Wife’s enforcement petition time-barred? | Claim accrued when payment missed Feb 2012; filing Feb 1, 2016 is within four-year contract SOL. | Breach occurred in 2012 and suit filed after four years; SOL bars relief. | Trial court and Superior: timely — claim accrued Feb 2012, suit filed within four years; not barred. |
| 2. Laches — should equitable delay bar Wife’s relief? | Wife acted with reasonable diligence; Husband cannot claim prejudice caused by his own breach. | Wife delayed four years; Husband prejudiced because he organized finances around not paying and is unemployed. | Laches not applicable: no clean equitable bar; Husband’s own breach undercuts prejudice claim. |
| 3. Whether Wife may recover where Husband waived retirement to obtain CRSC/disability pay (source-of-funds issue) | Settlement promises one-half of ‘‘retirement pay’’ (not limited to disposable retired pay); Husband’s unilateral waiver breached the agreement; court may award equivalent payments from other funds. | Mansell/Mansell line precludes treating VA/CRSC as divisible — Wife cannot reach disability benefits; trial court must identify an alternative source before ordering payments. | Court enforces agreement: Husband breached by changing source; Mansell prohibits attachment of disability benefits but does not bar equitable remedy requiring Husband to pay Wife from other funds (court need not specify source). |
| 4. Arrearage calculation — should damages be dated retroactively to Feb 2012? | Arrearages begin when payments ceased (Feb 2012). | If laches applies or calculation improper, retroactive dating wrong. | Court’s calculation from Feb 2012 affirmed; Husband waived argument by failing to cite authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (federal law precludes state courts from treating veterans’ disability benefits as divisible martial property)
- Hayward v. Hayward, 868 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2005) (spouse bound to pay agreed share of military retirement even if waiver to obtain disability benefits requires payment from other funds)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses interplay of federal law and PA classification of disposable retired pay; waived retirement not part of disposable retired pay)
- Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (continuing contract concept for statute of limitations in post-divorce payment obligations)
- In re Estate of Aiello, 993 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains doctrine of laches and equitable clean-hands principle)
- Salsman v. Brown, 51 A.3d 892 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for enforcement of settlement agreements)